TR Forums

Isam wrote:

even some of those RTS's and RPG's have been getting some steep requirements.

Yeah, like when I played through Warhammer 40k:Dawn of War...I think the recomended system requirements are a 1.5GHz Athlon and a DX8 video card...that's quite a bit for an RTS. At least I still have StarCraft and Diablo II.

Hizpanick wrote:

Because of its size, does this mean we cannot compare the Mac Mini to anything?

MiniITX SFF's, I think.

Hizpanick wrote:

Because of its size, does this mean we cannot compare the Mac Mini to anything?

When talking to a mac guy, yes. Logic is futile when cute is valued above all else

Had a Mac, in fact I owned two.

Been there, done that, Bought the t-shirt. You can keep them. Apple hasn't done anything compelling in years (ok, Maybe the cinema display, but I am sure someone else makes it for them). Not even flashy little boxes. It's not like no one else has done it.

I'll take the Shuttle please.

z-man wrote:

It's not like no one else has done it.

That thing is sod-all ugly. But the concept is there.

flip-mode wrote:

z-man wrote:

It's not like no one else has done it.

That thing is sod-all ugly. But the concept is there.

The Mac Mini must be better, because it looks so good!
I'm sure it's sleek design must add more CPU power, the way my race stickers add horsepower to my car!

flip-mode wrote:

That thing is sod-all ugly. But the concept is there.

Never said it was pretty and it was the first one I found on google.

[EDIT]

Bring it! Mac mini my a$$, I'll take one of these.

Hizpanick wrote:

The Mac Mini must be better, because it looks so good! I'm sure it's sleek design must add more CPU power, the way my race stickers add horsepower to my car!

Wasn't saying anything about performance. C'mon.... they could've done better. I've had bowel movements that looked nicer than that thing.

I guess this situation would only apply if you are basing asthetics into the equation when choosing the shuttle or mac mini. Unfortunately, looks are largely subjective.

flip-mode wrote:

Hizpanick wrote:

The Mac Mini must be better, because it looks so good! I'm sure it's sleek design must add more CPU power, the way my race stickers add horsepower to my car!

Wasn't saying anything about performance. C'mon.... they could've done better. I've had bowel movements that looked nicer than that thing.

Does it really matter that much? With something that size you could just stuff it behind your monitor or a stack of papers. Geez when did we become so damn superficial.

what are you going to use this system for? you should have listed that. If you want to game also go with the windows based pc it is more well rounded for gaming. If not you might be better off with the mac.

I think the ultimate deciding factor here should be which will fold faster for 2630

Thresher: so we can't compare them because one is more customizable? Because one is smaller than the other? That seems pretty darn silly to me, wouldn't those be points of comparison, not reasons to avoid comparision?

It's like saying we can't compare Mac OS X vs Windows because they support different hardware with different available software at different levels of optimization.

Oh noes they're different so we can't compare...

house wrote:

flip-mode wrote:

Hizpanick wrote:

The Mac Mini must be better, because it looks so good! I'm sure it's sleek design must add more CPU power, the way my race stickers add horsepower to my car!

Wasn't saying anything about performance. C'mon.... they could've done better. I've had bowel movements that looked nicer than that thing.

Does it really matter that much? With something that size you could just stuff it behind your monitor or a stack of papers. Geez when did we become so damn superficial.

I've always been superficial!

A group of people sat around and drew up the case for that thing. They took the time to do it. I bet any one of you here could have drawn up something nicer looking. My field is architecture. Good architecture has a dual requirement, actually three requirements: "commodity, firmness, and delight", a Vitruvian concept meaning performance, durability, and aesthetic pleasure. So, seeing as Vitruvius is approx 2200 years ago, superficiality, if that's what we've settled on labeling an aesthetic taste, is actually nothing new.

My whole point is that the XPC and the Mini are two different markets. Completely.

A person looking at an XPC is not likely to be looking at a Mini. For one thing, the XPC is a barebones PC, which implies some building. Or you could buy one of their prebuilt ones at a helluva premium. Either way, you can configure it to compete with some of the top of the line gaming rigs or HTPCs.

The Mini is what it is. It's a nice little machine for doing the basics and learning how to use Mac OS. It's not that fast (although the 1.42 is comparable in speed with a recent vintage Powerbook, except for the video). But it will run productivity apps, email, web browsing, all the usual suspects. It would make a nice little media server. But it appeals to a completely different audience. OS junkies will dig it, but hardware junkies will look for something faster.

Personally, I think the Mini is cute, but I have no use for it. I do have a homebuilt HTPC in an Aria case which fits my HTPC needs. The Mac Mini just can't compare, but then again, it was never intended to.

So, if you want a machine to play around with, maybe learn some Unix and OS X. It's a great box for hacking (for good purposes, of course). But don't confuse it with a real computer, either PC or Mac.

derFunkenstein wrote:

Isam wrote:

even some of those RTS's and RPG's have been getting some steep requirements.

Yeah, like when I played through Warhammer 40k:Dawn of War...I think the recomended system requirements are a 1.5GHz Athlon and a DX8 video card...that's quite a bit for an RTS. At least I still have StarCraft and Diablo II.

I'm playing on a 1.2 tbird, 512mb ram and a GF2. The minimum requirements are 800mhz P3, 256mb ram and TNT2.


Anyway I would go the mini. It handles all of the normal use and can play the most additive games of all Civ and HoMM (under emulation) fast enough due to them being turn based.

I guess thresher doesn't get it.

Besides the applications, which I have for both, I love the Form Factor of the mini but I love the power of the shuttle box... They are at opposite ends of the spectrum of SFF, but since there's nothing in the middle I must choose one.

It's like picking between a Hatchback and a Sedan if there was no such thing as a station wagon. People are in the market for more than one thing when looking for computers as well as cars. Just because they aren't DIRECT competitors doesn't mean they don't compete and that some customers don't choose between them.

Xbox best games are online while PS2 best games arguably are not. Are you going to tell me that they don't compete?

Why do you think they came up with the SUV? The Dodge Magnum? There are voids to be filled, but when the voids aren't covered, people choose between products that aren't exactly positioned against each other.

Anyway, I've been sitting here switching back and forth between my PC and my PB on my Dell 2001FP. Macs totally suck at flash for some reason, and I'm not the only one with that problem. The other thing is that there will be a Dual core 939 pin Athlon soon, and they way I use my Mac, it beachballs quite a bit. I think I am going to get the shuttle. It's small enough for now.

So then compare with a low end preassembled XPC. Even for a basic box, the XPC comes out on top, IMO.

dragmor wrote:

I'm playing on a 1.2 tbird, 512mb ram and a GF2. The minimum requirements are 800mhz P3, 256mb ram and TNT2.


Anyway I would go the mini. It handles all of the normal use and can play the most additive games of all Civ and HoMM (under emulation) fast enough due to them being turn based.

OK for some reason I thought DoW was alot more...played nicely on the box I had at the time...

I think I'm about to break the mini deal for droopy: 1600x1200 for pretty much any game I played on my Radeon 8500 (the natural resolution for his LCD monitor) was pretty rough...1280x1024 wasn't bad, but 1600x1200 at low details was too much for my poor 8500, so I imagine a 9200 with half the pixel units and half the video RAM would be the same.

As a main machine I'd go with the Shuttle. I like to game (FPS's mostly) and you can't do that very well (if at all) on a Mac. However, I do have a dual Xeon [email protected] with a 6800GT under my desk, so between the two options I'd choose a Mini Mac to go on my desk I've always wanted to have a go with MacOS and the Mac Mini would represent the perfect opportunity to do that.

Well, I have both a A64 XPC and a Mac Mini on my desk at work. The Mac Mini's got a great form factor, and runs extremely quiet, but my SN85G4 with a 3200+ CPU, 2GB DDR400, 9800Pro, and Raptor eats it for breakfast on performance .

Also, even with 512MB my Mac Mini seems very sluggish. It appears to be graphics limited even in 2D, and has trouble driving LCD's at either 1280x1024x32 or 1600x1200x32.

Here's what you do:

1) Get the Shttle and have a great time with it: play cool games, run your apps faster, feel free to install a TV tuner, or some other piece of the plethora of cool hardware you can put in a PC. Upgrade the components as they obsolesce.

2) Hang outside a Mac store, find someone who has a dead Mini and has been shafted by Apple on some technicality on the warranty (it will be easy). Buy the dead Mini from them. Put it on your desk, make it look like you are using it.

3) When girls come over, show them the Mac, they'll think you're sensitive, willing to show your feminine side. When guys come over show them the shuttle. They'll think you're a dude cus you have a buff computer.

Problem solved! The Shuttle is a cool computer, the Mac is a fashionable computer.

-A-

Plazmodeus wrote:

Here's what you do:

1) Get the Shttle and have a great time with it: play cool games, run your apps faster, feel free to install a TV tuner, or some other piece of the plethora of cool hardware you can put in a PC. Upgrade the components as they obsolesce.

2) Hang outside a Mac store, find someone who has a dead Mini and has been shafted by Apple on some technicality on the warranty (it will be easy). Buy the dead Mini from them. Put it on your desk, make it look like you are using it.

3) When girls come over, show them the Mac, they'll think you're sensitive, willing to show your feminine side. When guys come over show them the shuttle. They'll think you're a dude cus you have a buff computer.

Problem solved! The Shuttle is a cool computer, the Mac is a fashionable computer.

-A-

I use the samed technique to get full size boxes from Dell.

I want both a Mini AND a Shuttle. I want the Shuttle because I like tinkering, and playing games, and I like the mini cuz it is cute, runs OSX, and I am a fan of Crapple PC's. Plus I have secretly always wanted a 32MB 9200 to play DOOM3 on. w00t!

Where is the option for neither? I would rather have Calum's dual Xeon on my desk

Both..

Mac mini for the wife, and a st20g5 for me when they become available.

I will rather go for the Shuttle for now because it is still a standard PC component box. However, I was reading an article the other day, there is a new player, AOpen MZ855.
It is in color white just like the Mac mini, but it is running Intel P-M CPU. It runs quiet and cool with the ultra compact size. It may sit well on my desk quietly just like my cat sleeping. I haven't found the availablitily in the US yet, but it looks like the Mobo is the same as the Ey855-II that I read.
It should be exciting..... can't wait.

Hey, you Aopen guys, when will we see one here?? Hurry up!!